Atom Feed
July 14, 2006
As the BerkmanCenter moves physically, so too has its site for audio recordings. Some excellent stuff there. For example, right now I’m listening to Benjamin Hyde talk about what we can learn about “intellectual property” from Benjamin Franklin. [Tags: berkman podcast lewis_hyde ben_franklin digital_rights]
Tim Bray has posted Measuring the Web, an award-winning talk he gave in 1996 when he was at Open Text (Tim was a founder and head tech strategist; I had joined as marketing vp), one of the early Web indexing companies. A snapshot in November 1995 found 11,366,121 unique URLs and 223,851 unique servers. Current estimates are omigod unique URLs and you-gotta-be-kidding unique servers.
Lots of other interesting stats in the paper, including size of the average page, average number of embedded images (“just over 50% of all pages contain at least one image reference”), and number o links. [Tags: tim_bray web]
July 13, 2006
At the risk of seeming like I’m shilling for Kayak.com…Paul English, the co-founder, has posted his favorite flame mails responding to the ads they’re running. I like the whole experiment, from letting users create them to putting up ads that aren’t afraid of pissing off some people. Lowest-common-denominator ads are the rational strategy for a broadcast medium, but it tends to result in pabulum. So, I’m happy to see a little irrational exuberance. Anyway, Kayak’s ads are here. User-created ones are here. Mine is here.) [Tags: marketing advertising kayak paul_english]
John Palfrey and Robert Rogoyski have written a paper about Net neutrality as an architectural ideal and as a reality. Here’s the abstract:
This paper traces the evolution of thinking about the technical concept of the end-to-end principle and the legal concept of the regulation of the flow of packets across the Internet. We focus on the manner in which the state, in concert with private parties, has approached the tension between restricting the flow of certain packets and vindicating their citizens’ interests, legal and otherwise, in free expression. We argue that the primary mode of legal regulation on the Internet has shifted from a focus on outlawing activities at the nodes—end-points in the network—to a growing emphasis on regulating closer to the middle of the network. This trend is, on its face, good for the law enforcement officer but worrisome to the technologist and the democratic activist: the end-to-end principle, held dear for decades by those who built the Internet, is under threat. In the process, this shift also places corporations, often based in jurisdictions beyond those in which they are doing business, in the position of enforcing the rules of the regime in which they are doing business, but whose views on free expression and other civil liberties the corporations’ officers and directors do not share. We argue that the end-to-end principle, once translated loosely into political speak as “net neutrality,” is a forceful rhetorical concept – and, if done right, sound public policy – but that it no longer describes Internet on the ground, if it ever did.
You can get the paper here. (It’s for the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy.) [Tags: net_neutrality john_palfrey berkman]
BoldHeaded has turned Sen. Ted Stevens’ explanation of the Internet into a rap [Tags: internet ted_stevens tubes rap]
Global Voices rounds up Indian bloggers about the response to the bombings but also about Tom Cruise vs. Rajnikanth.
And where else but Global Voices will you find roundups about Kurdish despair and the Gay Pride Parade in Sao Paulo? [Tags: india mumbai kurds gays sao_paolo blogs]
July 12, 2006
Why do some people — exclude the disabled and those carrying bulky packages — stand on a down escalator instead of walking? You know how hard it is to walk up stairs? That’s because of gravity, people, and it works just in reverse when you’re going down. Going down, gravity is your friend.
Look, if you’re on an escalator, it’s because you’re going somewhere. Do you not want to get there? Are you going to have your teeth filed or to explain to your lawyer why your check to her bounced? If not, then walk down the flipping escalator already! Or at least stand to one side in shame so those of us who understand gravity aren’t trapped into admiring the back of your neck.
Jeez!
July 11, 2006
Jon writes about why he uses a modern old-fashioned push mower.
I use handclippers about twice a season and tell my neighbors that my puppetmaster, Al Gore, demands clumpy meadows. [Tags: lawns gardens lazy_bastards]
I moderated a panel this morning, part of the MITX Digital Marketing series. This one was on the future of TV. The panelists were Adam Berrey (Brightcove), Matthew Emans (Navic), Brent Simon (Verizon FIOS), and Peter Kim (Forrester).
Much of the discussion was about how advertising will work, but it did veer occasionally into deeper, muddier waters. What will TV become? Will we still be facing forward on the couch being bathed in one-way photons? When there are millions of “programs” to watch, will networks be replaced by playlists and in-boxes? Granting that we’re always going to want to watch some big, expensive, professional programs, where will they come from and how dominant will they be in the mix?
I dunno. But it does seem to me that we’re not as committed to “quality” as broadcasters assume. We like amateur podcasts and videocasts in part because they are amateur. Sure, I like big budget movies and top-notch TV like The Sopranos, and I don’t imagine that that’s going to come from the grassroots for quite a while…although those durn grassroots do have the habit of surprising us. But I don’t feel like I’m in a two-tiered system in which there’s the professional programming from the networks and then crappy little home-made programming. First, the tiers are already healing as grassroots content is getting more professional. Second, and more important, the broadcasters think it’s obvious that the quality is on the professional side. Production quality, sure. But TV for years has been hosing us down with the most awful, cynical dog water. The notion that quality is on the side of the broadcasters confuses three-camera setups with creativity and humanity.
Further, there are only a few genres of TV programming that the grassroots won’t be able to produce rather quickly and rather well. Dopey sitcoms will be hard for the grassroots to do, as will big budget spectaculars, features with big stars, and live sports events. But reality TV shows will come from the bottom up. Talk shows will. Sketch comedy. Cooking shows. The Online Daily Show with Amanda Congdon. Why not?
At the end of the session, Christopher Herot from the audience lit the Net neutrality stick o’ dynamite and handed it to the panel. Brent from Verizon gamely answered, saying that of course Verizon allows its users to access any content they want, but that Verizon is committed to providing the highest quality access, which I took as code for “We need to prioritize bits so that your on-demand videos play smoothly.” There’s lots to say in response, but I actually muttered under my breath, “Verizon doesn’t allow us to access sites. It’s our Internet.” Poor form for a moderator. Sorry. But I do think that captures some of the difference in viewpoints: The big providers think their management of the pipes (er, um, tubes) gives them the right to determine what gets pushed through the tubes. Net neutrality would tell them that tube-providers are only in the business of moving bits and that they don’t get special control over what goes through the tubes.
Then, fortunately, the bell sounded, the session ended, and we went home to await Congress’ “fast-track” passage of the disastrous telecommunications bill.
Chris Herot captured a bunch of the session in his blog.
Speaking of bottom-up TV, I created my own Kayak.com ad. They first review them for nudity and cussing, so it’ll take a day for it to be posted. But there’s a whole bunch up already. (Mine shows the Cheers bar.) [Disclosure: I’m friends with one of the co-founders of Kayak. That disposes me to like the site and its ad contest.] [Tags: tv mitx net_neutrality television]
Joho the Blog uses WordPress blogging software.
Thank you, WordPress!
